IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MBONED] Mail regarding draft-tissa-pim-mcastoam

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 21 March 2012 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C516121F860F for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7IxqXJmngGIl for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB2F21F8603 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2lfYIfcY86X+iUyCoes2uulx6WVwCL+@postini.com; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:56:13 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:53:47 -0700
Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:53:47 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:53:46 -0400
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>, "draft-tissa-pim-mcastoam@tools.ietf.org" <draft-tissa-pim-mcastoam@tools.ietf.org>, "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:53:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tissa-pim-mcastoam
Thread-Index: Ac0GG/Iw6vtXBbrBTxGWarf6ZPOOwwAKaTBQABgLJlAAGOsz8AAD5oGw
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768806F55@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768745564@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5C80039@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768745B27@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5D0FBE7@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5D0FBE7@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Mail regarding draft-tissa-pim-mcastoam
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:56:33 -0000

Tissa,

Having thought about your draft a while longer, I think that I can do a better job of articulating my objection. That is, that the tool described in 6450 is better suited to the problem at hand. 

Operators need a tool like this when a customer calls in wanting to know why he can't receive a multicast stream. In this case, it makes sense for the customer to initiate a test between himself and the server. It makes less sense for the server to blast something out to all of its clients hoping to elicit only a manageable number of responses.

One drawback of the solution described in RFC 6450 is that it requires clients and servers to be deployed on end systems. On the other hand, draft-tissa requires protocol changes on senders, receivers and intermediate routers. That seems to be a wash.

Furthermore, 6450 is fairly robust. Draft-tissa performance is subject to filters and rate limits that are imposed upon ICMP and optioned IP packets.

                                            Ron

BTW, In this email and in all previous messages on this thread, I am speaking as an individual contributor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email